stakeholder participation in policy - pubs.iied.orgpubs.iied.org/pdfs/x176iied.pdf · agriculture...

Managing Africa’s Soils No. 17

Stakeholderparticipation in policyprocesses in Ethiopia

Worku Tessema

July 2000

1Introduction

Agriculture is the backbone of the Ethiopian economy, providing food, industrial rawmaterials and 90% of foreign exchange earnings, while accounting for about half thecountry’s GDP (Croppenstedt and Muller, 2000). The agricultural sector is also the mainsource of employment and income for most of the rural population (Ibid, Shiferaw1994). The current development strategy in Ethiopia, known as AgriculturalDevelopment Led Industrialisation, is largely based on expanding agriculturalproduction. However, it has to operate within a variety of natural, economic and socialconstraints, including soil erosion, land degradation, deforestation, overgrazing, andrecurrent droughts (Kebede, 1993).

Small-scale farmers in Ethiopia use a number of soil fertility management strategies toimprove production (Eyasu, 1998; Data, 1998; Eyasu and Daniel, 2000). Although thesuccess or failure of these practices is often closely related to government policy, mostpolicies are developed by a small group of politicians and civil servants, with little roomfor public debate. However, attempts are under way to involve more stakeholders inpolicymaking, and it is hoped that by including farmers in the process it will be possibleto identify and tackle their problems more effectively.

The main objective of this study has been to create a better understanding of the policymaking process in Ethiopia, in order to become more effective when presenting policymakers with research findings on the soil fertility management practices used byfarmers. We examine the way in which environmental and extension policies – whichare particularly relevant to soil fertility management – are formulated and implemented.

This paper is divided into five sections, the first of which introduces the two study areasand describes the methodology and tools used in our research. Section two presentsfindings on the perceptions held by stakeholders of soil fertility in Ethiopia, and outlineskey policies identified by participants in the study. Section three focuses on the processof developing environmental policy, while section four discusses the national strategyfor extension. The final section draws a number of conclusions about our findings.

1Stakeholder participation in policy processes in Ethiopia

The study areasTo enable us to make regional comparisons, the study was conducted in two areas: theSouthern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR) and the Amhara NationalRegional State (ANRS). An administrative unit equivalent to a district, known as aworeda, was selected in each region for in-depth and local level study. The study siteswere the Kindo Koisha woreda of North Omo zone in SNNPR, and the Meket woredain the North Wollo zone of Amhara State (see map). Kindo Koisha is located about 450km south of Addis Ababa, in the enset/root crops belt, while Meket woreda lies about600 km north of Addis Ababa, in a low-potential area with cereal-based farmingsystems. These two woredas are located in mountainous areas characterised by landfragmentation, soil degradation and food insecurity. Livestock plays an important rolein the farming systems of both sites. Manure is commonly used for fuel in Meket, butnot in Kindo Koisha.

Map of Ethiopia

MethodologyThis study sets out to examine the perceptions held by different people, institutions andagencies of the problems faced by farmers in Ethiopia and complements previous workin these sites on the dynamics of soil fertility management (Eyasu, 2000; Eyasu andDaniel, 2000). The objectives are to:

2 Managing Africa’s Soils: No. 17

Addis Ababa

Amhara State

SNNPR

Bahir dar

Awassa


• Identify which policies influence agriculture and soil fertility management;• Analyse how policies are formulated and implemented;• Analyse the perceptions held by different stakeholders of soil fertility and the policy

making process; • Assess the implications of this study for identifying and designing policies and

interventions.

Using their previous experience and informal discussions with resource people in eachregion, the research team identified a number of key stakeholders, from heads ofgovernment bureaux and departments, and universities and research institutes, torepresentatives of NGOs. These stakeholders were invited to one-day meetings inAwassa and Bahir Dar to identify key policies relating to soil fertility management. Bothgroups suggested that policies on agricultural development and the environmentshould be analysed.

Two different checklists were drawn up for the interviews with stakeholders: one forpolicy makers, technicians and extension agents, and the other for farmers. A total ofsixteen farmers and thirty-nine policy makers, professionals and extension agents wereinterviewed across the two woredas. The research team also gathered information byparticipant observation, and from group discussions with farmers and extension workers.

After completing interviews in the SNNPR, a draft report was prepared and presentedat a feedback meeting attended by farmers, extension workers, researchers and policymakers. Time constraints meant that it was not possible to hold a feedback meeting inAmhara State.

Our research approach was intended to build a constituency of interests around theissue of soil fertility. Stakeholders were involved at three stages: firstly, in theidentification of key policies relating to soil fertility management; secondly, they wereinterviewed and asked to reflect on the way that these policies are formulated andimplemented; and thirdly, they were invited to feedback workshops to discuss theresults of the study and their implications for supporting local and national policyprocesses in the future. The positive outcome of the feedback meeting in SNNPRconfirmed the relevance of the research method chosen for this study, which explicitlyinvolved stakeholders in the design, and made a point of sharing the research findingswith them.


2Perceptions of soil fertility andkey policies for improvement

Perceptions of soil degradationAlthough there was general agreement that declining soil fertility is a cause for seriousconcern, stakeholders had different ways of framing and analysing environmentalproblems and assessing their relationship to soil fertility management.

Participants from the government and NGOs agreed that soil degradation is a seriousproblem in Ethiopia but have different opinions regarding its cause. A first group tooka broad view, and also discussed the role of forest, water, and wildlife resources in themanagement of soil fertility, while a second group of people mainly focussed onfarming practices when analysing causes of degradation, as exemplified by a technicianfrom the Bureau of Agriculture (BoA) in Amhara State: “Soil fertility managementrequires long and continuous attention. As land holdings have decreased over time,traditional methods of improving soil fertility have declined. There are no alternativesources of fuel, so we have to use manure, and then there is less available forfertilisation. Moreover, the existing soil and water conservation practices focus onconserving soil rather than improving its fertility. It seems difficult to talk aboutimprovement while we are not even able to maintain what we have”.

One member of a zonal BoA in SNNPR noted that: “One of the important issues is landhusbandry. This concept should be better understood by professionals, and by thefarmers as well. Land is a scarce natural resource that can be wasted and finished if notproperly managed, and we need a land use policy to help farmers and other investorsuse it properly. It should provide guidelines for classifying land according to capability,so it can be decided which land is for farming and which is for grazing”.

Most of the stakeholders in Amhara State thought that the environmental problemsrelated to soil degradation have been aggravated by population pressure andcompounded by the lack of relevant policies and regulations; while land tenure policies,land fragmentation and poverty were also widely seen as major causes of soildegradation. Members of the Bureau of Planning and Economic Development (BoPED)explained: “The major problem is poverty. Soil fertility management should thusconsider how to alleviate poverty. Population pressure is another problem that needsattention when dealing with soil fertility management. Population growth aggravatesdemand for resources, and a population policy needs to integrate environmental issues.


The dilemma between the immediate food and fuel needs of the farmer and long-termbenefits of conservation practices is the problem that BoA workers are facing on theground. The only sources of fuel are crop residues and cow dung, and becausesmallholders can only buy a little mineral fertiliser, soil fertility management in theregion is getting worse.

Land tenure policy is a limiting factor, there is a need for a clear statement on landownership and who exactly decides on how a given piece of land is used. Otherwise, itwill prohibit long-term soil fertility investment by farmers. Sometimes, the governmentcan take land from farmers for building infrastructure. But there must be a policy thatclearly states how to compensate farmers for their prior investments”.

While all the stakeholders agreed on the need for land use and land tenure policies,some felt that soil fertility management could best be improved by promoting improvedtechnologies and changing traditional practices, while others believed that it would bemore helpful to change policies in order to improve the economic context of farming.Another group thought that priority should be given to learning about soil types andtaxonomy, and to studying the chemical and physical characteristics of soils so that theycould be classified. They argued that it is difficult to talk about policies on soil fertilitymanagement without such basic information.

Identifying key policiesA number of issues related to policies were raised during the workshops, such as themanner in which they are formulated, formalised and implemented, and theinterrelationships between different policies. When asked to give a definition of a policy,most participants in the SNNPR described them as tools that are used by governmentsto implement their political and economic programmes. The time spent identifyingrelevant policies was most instructive, and highlighted the following points:• There was some discussion as to what actually constitutes a policy, as some argued

that they only exist if they are formally documented or outlined in a statement orproclamation, while others claimed that they do not always need to be statedexplicitly, as they are sometimes included in broader strategies;

• Some people said that strategies and programmes should not be included in policystudies, arguing that only officially documented government statements constitutepolicies. Others claimed that they are an integral part of policy, and should thereforebe studied in order to understand the implications of pursuing a particular course ofaction;

• It is not always clear whether a particular line taken by the government has beenformalised into official policy. For example, some participants from the BoA claimedthat there was no land tenure policy, while others from the BoPED argued that thepolicy initiated by the Derg has been left unchanged by the current government;


• Some members from the BoA argued that while there is no explicit policy on soilconservation, the strategy for soil and water conservation was always woven into theoverall agricultural development programme. However, this view was challenged bythose who claimed that it has only recently been included in the broad spectrum ofthe federal environmental policy;

• Most policies seem to have some bearing on soil fertility management – almost all thepolicies related to development and social services were mentioned during thebrainstorming session. Opinions varied as to whether particular policies were relevantto soil fertility management: some saw education and disaster prevention andpreparedness as very important, while others felt that they were less significant;

• There was a heated debate over participation. Some members from the BoA inAmhara State said that if local people were interviewed and involved in participatoryresearch they could be said to have participated in the process of policy formulation.However, one researcher commented that community consultation does notconstitute participation: “One can dare to say that the community has participatedin policy formulation only when it has initiated the policy process, or when its ideasand suggestions are sensibly incorporated in the policy”. An expert from BoPEDidentified three types of participation: forced participation, participation incommunity initiatives and participation through representatives. He suggested thatthe last two types should be used to formulate and implement policies;

• Most people knew nothing about the processes involved in formulating policies; onlythose who had participated in the process as committee members or by attendingworkshops seemed to have an idea of what was involved.

Participants were then asked to list the policies that they considered most relevant tosoil fertility management. In Awassa, they identified four main policies: extensionstrategy, environmental policy, land tenure policy and policy on agricultural research. Atthe workshop in Bahir Dar, fifteen policies were listed, with the following five identifiedas the most relevant: agricultural development policy/extension strategy, regionalconservation strategy, land use policy, soil and water conservation policy, andagricultural research policy. The research team decided to concentrate on environmentalpolicy and extension strategy in both areas to ensure comparability.

3


Environmental policy

Historical contextAlthough there had been some concern about land use and deforestation before themid-1970s, environmental policy was then very limited. Table 1 provides an overview ofthe environmental concerns and policies in SNNPR since the 19th century.

Table 1. Conservation and environmental concerns in SNNPR

Period Concern

Time of Menilik • Deforestation due to urbanisation.(from 1890s) • Protection of wildlife, especially elephants.

1940 – 1970 • Emphasis in legislation on protecting wildlife and forests. • Development projects aimed at agricultural intensification.

Time of Derg • Revolution, land reform, and creation of Peasant Associations. 1974 – 1990 • Afforestation and soil conservation as part of Food for Work

Programmes.• Sectoral approach to conservation activities.• Work starts on formulation of National Conservation Strategy.

1991 – to present • Cross-sectoral environmental policy formulated, but not implemented.

• Development of regional conservation strategy. • Less government involvement in soil conservation activities,

which have largely been taken over by NGOs.

In 1974 the Derg government came to power after a revolution ended the imperialregime of Hailie Selassie. Land reform was introduced in 1975 and peasant associations(PAs) were set up. A drought in the same year attracted the attention of internationalagencies, and also alerted the government to the gravity of environmental degradationacross the country. With conservation now a priority, PAs were used to mobilise rurallabour through food for work (FFW) activities, which were financed by the World FoodProgramme. The FFW programme used soil conservation methods to tackle theproblems caused by the degradation of natural resources, and soil and stone bundswere built on hundreds of thousands of hectares of cultivated land in the central and


northern highlands. This highly labour intensive work was centrally planned, and aslocal communities were not consulted about the installation of these conservationstructures, they felt no sense of responsibility for them. As these measures were alsogenerally incompatible with existing practices, they consequently neither lasted norachieved much in terms of improving degraded land (Wood, 1990; Campbell, 1991;Kruger et al, 1996).

In the 1980s, the forestry administration was strengthened by the establishment of theForestry and Wildlife Conservation and Development Authority (FaWCDA), whichfocused on afforestation and the protection of degraded hillsides, while conservationmeasures on croplands were largely confined to bunding (Constable, 1985). Anothergreat drought in 1984 resulted in widespread famine and attracted further attentionfrom international organisations. They laid much of the blame for this disaster on theadvanced degradation of natural resources, and stressed the need for moreconservation activities in the country.

Formulating policies at federal levelIn 1989, as a result of increased pressure from international agencies, and a growingawareness within government circles of the impact of environmental degradation onsustainable development, it was decided to develop a National Conservation Strategy(NCS) at federal level, which was finally approved in 1997.

In 1990, the Office of the National Committee for Central Planning and theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) organiseda conference in Addis Ababa to plan the national conservation strategy. The policyrecommendations made during the conference were presented to the Council ofMinisters, but no immediate action was taken because of the worsening civil war, whichsubsequently resulted in a change of government. In 1992, IUCN and the TransitionalGovernment of Ethiopia (TGE) signed an agreement for the provision of assistance toformulate the NCS. Work was done on formulating a policy and institutional frameworkfor the NCS. This process has also involved specialist consultants and cross-sectoral taskforces at zonal level, who were responsible for local level consultations and assessingnatural resources (Environment and Development, 1997).

The second NCS conference took place in May 1994, and was attended by participantsfrom ten regional governments, the ministries involved in natural resourcemanagement, academic institutions, NGOs and representatives from the donorcommunity. Some 250 participants discussed the different natural resource sectors, aproposed policy and institutional framework for the NCS, the action plan and aninvestment programme. Five volumes of NCS documents were then reviewed by aninter-ministerial committee and submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office.


The third phase of the NCS began in July 1995, by which time the TGE had beensucceeded by the government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE),and a number of institutional changes effected at ministerial and regional levels. Atfederal level, a secretariat for the NCS had been established in the new EnvironmentalProtection Authority (EPA), which was jointly responsible with the EnvironmentalPlanning Unit of the Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation (MEDaC) forimplementing the NCS. The environmental policy of the FDRE was officially adopted inApril 1997 (see Box 1), and is currently used by regional governments as the basis fortheir environmental policies.

Box 1. Federal Environmental Policy

The overall goal of the federal environmental policy is (EPA and MEDaC, 1997:3): “To improve and enhance the health and quality of life of all Ethiopians and promotesustainable social and economic development through the sound management anduse of natural, human-made and cultural resources and the environment as a whole,so as to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the abilityof future generations to meet their own needs.”

Specific objectives include: • Ensuring that renewable natural resources are used in such a way that their

regenerative and productive capacities are maintained and, where possible,enhanced. Where this capability is already impaired, the aim is to restore capacitythrough appropriate interventions;

• Incorporating environmental considerations in the planning and implementation ofpolicies, programmes and projects;

• Ensuring the empowerment and participation of people and their organisations atall levels of environmental management activities;

• Raising public awareness and promoting understanding of the essential linkagesbetween the environment and development.

The development of regional environmental policies During its period of office the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE) promotedregionalisation, giving each region the opportunity to develop their own conservationstrategies through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. TheTGE and the United Nations Sudano Sahelian Office (UNSO) signed an agreementcovering the provision of assistance to the enlarged regional strategy developmentprogramme, which was to be completed in April 1994 (ANRS, 1997).

A similar process was followed in both of the regions covered by our study. In 1992, theNCS office mobilised the regional planning offices, which sent out lots of people to helpcollect the information needed to develop conservation strategies. Regional task forces


composed of governmental organisations were established, and the regionalconservation strategy (RCS) was developed on the basis of draft reports presented atregional conferences. The document produced at the workshop was submitted to theMEDaC, and later also used to develop the federal environmental policy.

However, alterations in policy and the changes brought about by the introduction of anew regional structure meant that work on the RCS was suspended until the third NCSconference in 1995. It has also been suggested that this delay was due to a desire towait until the federal environmental policy was finalised.

The process in the SNNPR In 1995, the director of the Conservation Strategy of Ethiopia (CSE) and a consultantfrom IUCN went to Awassa to help the regional council reactivate work on the regionalenvironmental policy. After a one-day meeting attended by the heads of variousbureaux, it was decided to establish a regional conservation strategy task force,composed of seventeen professionals from different government structures, andchaired by the vice president of the regional state. Its secretariat was based at BoPED,and the bureau head became secretary of the steering committee. Eighteen differentareas of concern were identified, and a questionnaire was designed to collect regional-specific data on these issues. A four-volume RCS was then prepared, with volume Icovering the resource base and problems, volume II focusing on conservation policy andstrategy, volume III dealing with the institutional framework and operationalarrangements, and volume IV outlining the action plan and investment programme.

Unfortunately there were a number of problems with the task force, which was severelyhampered by lack of commitment from its members. A summary report on ‘The statusof the regional conservation strategy in the SNNPRS’ remarked on: “the lack ofemphasis given to the work by the member bureaux, because it was regarded as extrawork outside their action plans. To motivate the task force, T-shirts sent by the CSE weredistributed to members”.

In 1997, a three-day conference was called to discuss the draft RCS. Chaired by thepresident of the regional government, the conference was attended by about 120people from various organisations, such as regional and zonal councils, representativesfrom the federal government, farmer representatives from various zones, heads andexperts from regional and zonal sectoral offices, representatives from institutes ofhigher education, NGOs and religious leaders. Participants were given the opportunityto comment on the RCS in working groups and plenary sessions. Although documentshad been sent some fifteen days before the workshop, some stakeholders reported thatthey had only had four days to read them and were therefore not in a position tocomment fully on the proposals. Nonetheless, a number of issues were discussed, suchas the need to establish a regional Environmental Protection Office, accountable to theregional council, to facilitate implementation. Consultants in the IUCN/CSE also


reviewed the document, and all comments were to be incorporated into the finalversion before its submission to the regional council for final approval. This process wasstill under way in March 2000.

Perceptions of the policy process in the SNNPRThe federal conservation policy is widely seen as the product of a top-down process,which is generally regarded as the direct result of Ethiopia having signed the UNCEDconventions in 1992. Many actors at regional level think that it will be difficult toimplement this federal environmental policy, and that a number of potential problemscould have been avoided by involving local people in its formulation. They say “weshould not limit ourselves to policing regulations and rules”, but should also aim toeducate and raise awareness by setting up village level environmental protectioncommittees. The lack of any legal framework, and the fact that the mechanisms forimplementing policy are weak and liable to be hijacked for political ends, are additionalreasons why many stakeholders believe that it is essential to set up a regional agencyto oversee the implementation of what is supposed to be a holistic, cross-sectoral policy.

Government officials, however, have high expectations of the regional conservationstrategy, which will consist of a group of sectoral and cross-sectoral policies for themanagement of a wide range of natural resources. Covering both rural and urbanareas, they are intended to provide a general framework for the future development ofmore specific environmental policies. Although each sectoral bureau is responsible forits own environmental activities, and for drawing up regulations or policies specific toits area, it has been recommended that a regional office be established to co-ordinatetheir efforts and facilitate work on cross-sectoral issues.

The process in Amhara State In May 1994 a regional conservation taskforce of experts from twenty-eight differentinstitutions in the region officially started work on developing the RCS. As responsibilityfor co-ordination shifted from the BoPED regional planning office to the regional BoA, thetaskforce evolved into the Regional Environmental Co-ordinating Committee (RECC),composed of the heads of thirteen bureaux and chaired by the vice-president of theregional state. The RECC collected information from different zones and selectedworedas, and presented its findings to its editorial board, which was chaired by the BoA.Using the NCS and the Ethiopian Forestry Action Programme (EFAP) documents asreferences, the board reviewed the various strategy documents and prepared a draft RCS.

The draft RCS, was reviewed during a regional EFAP workshop attended by a number ofstakeholders, including farmer representatives. The draft RCS was then sent to expertsfor comment, and in November 1996 was further reviewed at a three-day workshop inBahir Dar, where participants included professionals from regional and zonal sectoroffices, administrative councils, religious organisations, elders, and the NCS office and


ministries. The BoA secretariat incorporated the input from the workshop, and in July1997 produced a final draft containing thirteen sectoral and twelve cross-sectoralpolicies and strategies. This was submitted to the regional council office for approval,which has been considerably delayed by the requirement for a clear separation betweenpolicy guidelines and strategies. The EPA is now helping to revise the document, whichshould be ready for implementation by June 2000. The plan is to establish a specialoffice that will be responsible for implementation.

Perceptions of the policy process in Amhara StateMost of the informants from the BoPED felt that the environmental protection unit ofMEDaC was largely responsible for instigating work on the RCS. The regional BoA wasassigned responsibility for co-ordinating policy development, possibly because of thelack of interest shown by the head of BoPED at the time. Although high-ranking staffat BoPED believe that their bureau should have co-ordinated the process, theirparticipation was limited to involvement in the taskforce, commenting on the draftdocument and attending the review workshop.

Stakeholders in Amhara State reported that while they do not feel involved in thedevelopment of the federal environmental policy, they do think that they haveparticipated in formulating the RCS. They are of the opinion that the RCS wasdeveloped in a participatory manner, and that although it was initiated at federal level,using the NCS as a framework, the involvement of stakeholders from various levels hasresulted in a policy that is well adapted to conditions in the region. The workshops forreviewing the RCS were generally seen as helpful and transparent, and althoughparticipants had different professional backgrounds, educational status and experience,they felt able to express their opinions freely. However, despite a commonunderstanding of the environmental problems, suggestions for future actions revealedcompetition for scarce natural resources. If tree cutting is to be limited and manure usedto maintain and improve soil fertility, what are people to use for fuel? The RCS will haveto strike a balance between poverty alleviation and environmental protection.

Like their counterparts in SNNPR, stakeholders in Amhara State worry about how theRCS will be implemented and cross-sectoral issues addressed. In order to be effective,the RCS needs to be backed up by a set of related policies on land tenure, land use andpopulation, and laws, rules and regulations that enhance the appropriate use andmanagement of natural resources. As it stands, the regional councils are expected to setother relevant policies, allocate human resources, plan budgets and provide aframework for popularisation. BoPED favours a single agency that would be responsiblefor executing the RCS and managing the budget and human resources.

4


Table 2. History of interventions in agricultural extension in Ethiopia

1951

American Technical Mission “Point four” and FAO started projects in several sectors, including crops, livestock and forestry

1975-1978

-First Minimum Package Programme (MPP I)-Extension and Project Implementation Department (EPID)-Model farmer approach and pre-cooperative groups

Extension strategy

Historical contextThe current National Extension Intervention Programme has evolved out of thecommunity development approach used in the 1950s, and the focus since the 1960son modernising agriculture and increasing food production through a packageapproach. The timeline shown in Table 2 traces some of the interventions that havetaken place over the last fifty years. The ‘comprehensive package’ approach wasintroduced in 1967 by projects such as Chillalo Agricultural Development Unit (CADU)and Wolaita Agricultural Development Unit (WADU), which were funded by the WorldBank. This approach focused on high potential areas and relied on external inputs toimprove agricultural productivity. It was succeeded by the minimum packageprogramme approach (MPP) and the Peasant Agricultural Development ExtensionProject (PADEP), which used the Training & Visit (T&V) method of extension.

1957-1961

First five-yeardevelopment Plan-CommunityDevelopment approach-Alemaya AgriculturalCollege (AAC) in chargeof agricultural researchand extension

1962-1967

Second five-yeardevelopment plan -MoA took overresponsibility forextension from AAC-Institute of AgriculturalResearch establishedfertiliser trials with FAO

1968-1975

Third five-yeardevelopment plan -Firstcomprehensivepackageprogramme-CADU 1967-1975-WADU 1970-1982

1981

MPP IIPeasantassociations& servicecooperatives

1985-1993

-PeasantAgriculturalDevelopmentExtension Project(PADEP)-Contact-followfarmer approach-Modified T&Vsystem

1993

Start SG 2000– ExtensionManagementand Training(EMT) plots,using apackageapproach

Since 1994

NationalExtensionInterventionProgramme(NEIP) adoptingT&V and SG 2000approaches;PADETS, and on-farm trials


Current extension strategy is determined by the National Extension InterventionProgramme (NEIP), which aims to ensure food self-sufficiency, while the presentapproach, known as the Participatory Demonstration and Extension Training System(PADETS), combines elements of the previous T & V system with the Sasakawa Global2000 approach1.

National Extension Intervention ProgrammeAccording to Habtemariam (1997), the National Extension Intervention Programme wasan emergency strategy of the government, developed on the basis of the experience ofSG 2000 in Ethiopia, which had attracted the attention of policy makers through a well-organised publicity campaign. National research and extension institutions wereinvolved in SG 2000 activities, which started in 1993 with an assessment of thetechnologies available in the country. Technology packages for maize and wheat werethen developed and tested with 160 farmers in woredas in Oromia and the Southernregions, in demonstrations by agricultural officers and farmers working with materialand technical support from SG 2000. In 1994, the field programme broadened toinclude sorghum and teff, and the number of farmers involved rose to 1600. The goodweather in 1995 produced impressive yields, persuading the government that self-sufficiency in food could be achieved with the SG 2000 approach, which was adoptedthat year as the foundation for NEIP. The intention was for NEIP to cover 35,000farmers, while SG 2000 continued to work with 3500 producers.

In 1996 the government organised a national workshop in Jimma, which was tobecome known as the ‘Jimma Conference’. Chaired by the Prime Minister, andattended by many people from council offices, the bureau of agriculture, SG 2000officials and others, the main theme of the workshop was how to expand the SG 2000experience within the regular regional extension programmes. It was decided that theyshould be scaled up, with a tenfold increase in demonstrations over the next year,targeting 350,000 farmers who would start an NEIP demonstration plot. It wassubsequently decided that the regions would have to expand their agriculturalextension demonstration programmes to include other packages, such as livestock, highvalue crops and post harvest packages.

According to an extension expert in the regional Bureau of Agriculture, the mainstrength of the NEIP or PADETS approach is that “it considers three basic elements ofan extension system, namely a package of technologies, credit and communication”.These three elements involve many actors, such as the input co-ordination unit, the co-operative office, state council offices, credit institutions and private sector suppliers ofinputs such as fertilisers, seeds and agro-chemicals. One observer, however, commentedthat PADETS is an excellent extension system in principle, but that it has been distortedby the manner in which it has been implemented.

1 The SG 2000 programme is a collaboration between the Sasakawa Africa Association and the Carter Centre’s Global2000. Operative in over ten African countries, this programme aims to bring ‘science-based crop production methodsto the small farms of sub-Saharan Africa’ by disseminating proven technologies. SG 2000 emphasises the primary roleof mineral fertilisers in improving soil fertility and agricultural production.


CreditThere was considerable debate over the best way to set up a credit system for theprogramme. Farmers cannot borrow directly from banks because they have noconventional form of collateral, so it was decided that the regional council offices wouldsecure credit from the banks and channel it into the co-operatives at zonal and woredacouncil offices. Farmers involved in the extension programme would then receive creditin kind (seeds, mineral fertilisers or other agro-chemicals) from the agricultural officesthrough these or co-operatives and repay the loan after the harvest. However, there arevarious problems with this system: the agricultural offices and co-operatives are pressedfor timely repayments by the regional and zonal offices, which use their yearly budgetsas collateral for the bank loans, while farmers are pushing to have their debts waivedafter bad harvests so that they do not have to sell livestock to pay off their loans.Development agents and extension workers also complain that being responsible forcollecting repayments compromises their role as extension educators, as farmers areunwilling to take their advice after they have been pressured to repay their loans.

The councils and PAs act as intermediaries between input suppliers and creditinstitutions on the one hand, and woreda agricultural offices and farmers on the other,laying down regulations and offering services to borrowers, suppliers and lenders.

The process in the SNNPRThe SG 2000 project started in the SNNPR in 1994/1995, when senior SG 2000 staffcame to Awassa to discuss a programme of demonstrations with the Bureau ofAgriculture. A co-ordinator was assigned to run demonstrations in three zones, andselected ‘hard working’ farmers were provided with a package of mineral fertilisers andimproved maize seed, for which they were expected to pay 75% of the cost.

The expanded extension programme was implemented in other areas after the decisionto scale NEIP up to national level, and the first results were highly promising, with maizeproduction increasing so dramatically in 1997 that it created marketing problems. Therange of packages has increased since 1997, and now includes crops such as coffee,pulses, oil crops and vegetables; livestock improvement initiatives such as fatteningprogrammes and raising small ruminants and poultry; and soil and water conservationand agro-forestry.

Perceptions of the policy process Extension policy was widely seen as very important, in that it has enabled a largenumber of farmers to increase their productivity and achieve a measure of food security.While most respondents saw the extension strategy as a federal policy that filtereddown to regional level, some did feel that their contributions to national and regionalworkshops and training fora had had an impact, resulting in a more participatoryapproach to policy implementation.


However, there was some debate over the fact that the present extension strategypromotes the intensive use of mineral fertilisers and improved seed as the only meansof achieving food self-sufficiency. While some agreed with this line, others within theBoA, BoPED and NGOs argued that agricultural development can only be sustained bycombining organic and inorganic fertilisers. They claimed that the present extensionapproach is very similar to the WADU programme of the 1970s, which also emphasisedthe use of external inputs, and pointed out that the technologies it promoted were notsustained for long.

A number of staff at zonal level thought that the extension package put too muchemphasis on improving crop production, while ignoring animal husbandry, forestry andsoil and water conservation. They suggested that the immediate objective of achievingfood self-sufficiency should not compete with long-term sustainable development, butthat the two should be mutually supportive. However, the majority of respondents feltthat although most packages were initially developed for crop production, moreattention is now being paid to livestock, and the poultry improvement package hasbecome very popular in many places.

Participants were also divided over the extension methodology used to implementPADETS. While some supported the combination of input supply and on-farm trainingas the only way of achieving national food self-sufficiency, others highlighted theproblems caused by crop failure and the difficulties subsequently experienced byfarmers unable to repay their loans.

Opinions also differed on the implementation of the extension strategy. While someofficials at regional level saw the increase in the number of farmers involved in theextension package as a positive development, others at zonal level, especially thedevelopment agents, viewed it as a burden imposed on them in the form of a quota tofulfil. One development agent in Kindo Koisha woreda said “it is not the number offarmers which brings increased production and thereby food self-sufficiency in thecountry, but …the efficiency of the system which would contribute to that end.”

The preliminary research findings were presented at a meeting attended by policymakers, experts, extension workers, researchers, instructors and farmers, sparking aheated debate about the implementation of the extension strategy. While extensionexperts at regional level focused on the number of farmers involved, the packages thathave been developed and the increased productivity they have effected, farmerscomplained vociferously about the coercive measures used to disseminate the packages,and their problems with the credit system. Farmers were also unhappy about having tobuy the full package, even when they do not need the seed.

Participants eventually concluded that there is an information gap between regionalextension experts and extension workers at woreda and zonal levels, which could be


addressed by establishing a better feedback system. It was also proposed that agriculturaloffices at all levels should establish an efficient participatory monitoring and evaluationsystem, and that regional experts should carry out an impact assessment of PADETS.

The process in Amhara StateWhen SG 2000 started carrying out field demonstrations in 1994, the only otherextension system in Amhara State was a modified version of the T&V approach. By 1995there were 8000 demonstration sites in the region, and the federal government startedimplementing the SG 2000 approach the following year, when PADETS was adopted asthe principal extension system. In 1996, the regional government started demonstrationplots with 8000 new farmers, and the following year it took up the challenge ofattaining the tenfold increase in the number of demonstration plots that had beenagreed at the Jimma conference.

While stakeholders in ANRS were aware that the extension strategy was initiallydeveloped at national level, they believed it was adopted so enthusiastically by theregional government because it was expected to increase food production. Extensionexperts in the regional BoA reported that the strategy had been adapted to includepackages and various approaches that made it more appropriate to local conditions.There are currently about seventy-five packages in Amhara State, of which the mostpopular and successful among both farmers and extension agents is the bee-keepingpackage in Meket woreda.

A number of NGOs have worked to make the extension system genuinely participatory,particularly SOS Sahel, which piloted participatory extension planning (PEP) with theMeket Development Programme. PEP started in 1996, with a meeting between NGOand government officials, whose joint objective was to strengthen the PADETS initiative.Methodologically, PEP differs from PADETS in that it encourages farmers to participatemore in decision-making and monitoring processes. Staff in the zonal and woredaagricultural offices now seem convinced that PEP has improved the PADETS approach,as it enables participants to learn from their experiences and involves the community inplanning activities, selecting packages, and evaluating the process. Farmers welcomethe way that PEP allows them to identify and prioritise their problems, plan actions andevaluate the process and outputs, making their own decisions while the technicians actas advisors and facilitators.

Perception of the policy processThe BoA feels that they have been influencing the implementation of the extensionpolicy. This not only had the practical result of making it more effective, but also madepeople feel that they had some input into and control over the strategy. There wereeven claims that the SG 2000 programme uses the regional extension system thatdeveloped from the T&V approach, simply adding on practical tools such as


demonstrations. The criticism is that despite its name, the Participatory Demonstrationand Training System (PADETS) initially ignored the importance of a group approach.

However, farmers and staff at the woreda agricultural office also recalled the immensepressure they were under in the early days of PADETS, when packages were rigidlyimposed and farmers were obliged to take both fertiliser and improved seeds,regardless of whether they needed or could afford to pay for them. Farmers reportedthat although the package systems are improving, they still have problems repayingtheir loans in the event of crop failure or loss of livestock, and some of them also saidthat they are indirectly pressured to accept certain packages. Many farmers alsocomplained that they were pushed to apply for additional credit, even though they wereunable to pay off their initial loan because their crops had failed.

Meanwhile, agricultural staff was struggling to reach seemingly impossibledemonstration targets: “After the Jimma conference, we were told to increase tenfoldthe number of demonstrations. After trying our best we reported to the zonal officethat we were unable to fulfil the ‘quota’. But they said that was not a quota but anindicative plan, which relieved us from tension.”

The administrative councils in Amhara State organise the input supply by arrangingcredit for farmers with three major private suppliers of fertiliser, agro-chemicals andimproved seeds. One extension expert in the BoA observed that the system is mademore stressful by the fact that council offices at all levels are ultimately indebted to thebank, and that this colours the way that credit and repayments are organised.According to the results of one survey, the guarantee signed by regional governments(which entails 20% of the annual budget in Amhara State) has enabled service co-operatives to provide fertiliser on credit to peasant associations, but forcing privatesector traders out of the market. It has been suggested that the regional authoritiesshould wind down their involvement in the credit system, that the relationship betweenbanks and traders should be strengthened, and that peasant associations and farmergroups could be made creditworthy using innovative approaches to collateral andmutual guarantees (UNDP and FAO, 1997).

5


Discussion and conclusions

In this section we will compare the way that the environmental policy and extensionstrategies were formulated and implemented, and analyse regional differences betweenthe two.

Environmental policyA wide range of national and international actors were involved in developing a federalenvironmental policy, working for over eight years to bring the National ConservationStrategy (NCS) to the point when, in 1997, it was ready for implementation. However,involvement of stakeholders in the formulation of the NCS has been restricted mainlyto workshops. Local ‘participation’ took place at zonal and woreda level through LocalLevel Participatory Planning and Action (LLPPA), but this actually refers to farmersproviding labour for soil and water conservation activities, rather than using theirknowledge to make recommendations for future strategies.

Many more people and organisations have been involved in formulating regionalconservation strategies. The general consensus among stakeholders seemed to be thatthe regional conservation policy has been formulated in a participatory manner, andthat the involvement of people at various levels has produced a comprehensive strategydocument appropriate to the resource base in the region. However, although manybelieved that the institutional aspects of the strategy are well conceived, there waswidespread concern about how it will be implemented without a specific co-ordinatingbody and the human and financial resources associated with such an organisation.Considerable policy support will be required to implement an environmental policy thataddresses a number of cross-sectoral issues. Formulation is behind schedule in bothregions, although a little more progress has been made in Amhara State. Somestakeholders claimed that the delay is actually due to the fact that the regionalgovernment has marginalized the conservation policy.

Extension policyThe agricultural bureaux have primary responsibility for extension strategy, and haveadopted an approach pioneered by the international NGO SG 2000, which wassubsequently accepted by the government. Although this extension policy was planned


at federal level in a short space of time and without much consultation, it was quicklyimplemented and very well received by regional governments. However, while it hasbeen successful in so far as it has involved a large number of farmers, there has beenconsiderable controversy over the extent of their participation in the process, thetechnical packages, the approach to disseminating new technologies, the credit systemand conditions of payment, and the annual targets for demonstration plots.

In the case examined here, neither farmers nor extension agents and other professionalsat lower administrative levels were invited to participate in the formulation of theextension strategy. This may well have contributed to the unrealistic targets set forextension workers, the development of sometimes inappropriate technology packages,and problems with the credit system. Extension workers felt overstretched and unableto fulfil their ‘quotas’, which resulted in a rather aggressive and coerciveimplementation of the system. Farmers had to deal with repayment problems thatcreated a climate of resentment and distrust between them and the extension agentsthat were supposedly there to support them. Most of the experts in the agriculturaloffices, especially at zonal and woreda levels, complained that the council offices havefocused more on the number of farmers involved in the extension package programmesthan on the quality of output. Nonetheless, most technicians conceded that thepackage system has improved as a result of several evaluation workshops involvingfarmers and other stakeholders. In order to be more effective and sustainable, PADETSshould be monitored and evaluated at all levels, and continuously adapted to meet thereal needs of farmers. As part of this process, the results of annual evaluationworkshops should be used as the basis for planning activities for the following year.

Our research indicated that extension staff in Amhara State feels more in control ofpolicy implementation than those in SNNPR. Senior staff in the BoA in ANRS said thatafter modifying the T&V system, moving on to PADETS seemed a logical continuationof what they were already doing, and that they were able to use their experience toadapt PADETS to conditions in the region. Woreda and zonal extension agents weregiven further impetus by their active involvement in developing the ParticipatoryExtension Planning methodology (PEP) for the Meket Development Programme inconjunction with SOS Sahel, which is currently responsible for implementing the PEPapproach in the woreda.

Bottom-up policy initiativesA number of initiatives at woreda level in the northern region of Amhara State had aninfluence on the development of regional policies. One case, relating to land user rightsin Meket woreda, arose from work that SOS Sahel was doing with the MeketDevelopment Programme in the area, using ‘Participatory Land Use Planning andImplementation’ (PLUPI) as a methodology for land resource management. Groups offarmers working with the programme agreed to manage certain degraded areas on


condition that user rights were prolonged, and a procedure was then developed inconsultation with the agricultural and council offices. Many farmers started preparingto manage the degraded areas, applied for user rights, and began work as soon aslicences from the woreda government were issued through the agricultural offices.After a workshop to discuss their experiences, agricultural office staff were trained sothat they could start a pilot programme in two other woredas, and the three schemeswere subsequently presented at a regional workshop. The regional government was soimpressed by this initiative that it drew up guidelines for the allocation of mountainouslands to farmers willing to manage them, which have been adopted as regional policy.

ConclusionsThis study focused on the processes used to formulate and implement environmentaland extension policies in Ethiopia. Both were initiated at federal level and filtered downto regional, zonal and woreda levels (see Table 3). Although the Regional ConservationStrategy has not yet been finalised, it is expected by those involved to have a majorimpact on soil fertility management when it is implemented. The extension strategy,which was formulated very rapidly, has been implemented with considerable supportfrom the State, and its emphasis on the use of mineral fertilisers and other externalinputs has had a significant impact on soil fertility. However, it is also controversial as itis not popular with some farmers and may not be sustainable in the long term becauseof the cost of inputs and neglect of improving soil organic matter.

As Garret and Islam (1998) point out, policymaking can be facilitated by particularpolitical conditions. The national extension strategy is a case in point, as thegovernment’s desire to achieve national food self-sufficiency, combined with their beliefin the SG 2000 approach, fuelled the rapid formulation and prompt implementation ofthe programme. For its part, SG 2000 had benefited from good rains in the early yearsof the campaign, well-organised publicity, and the support of a wide range of keyindividuals and institutions at national and international level. The combination of allthese factors resulted in the NGO not only being noticed, but also having its findingsacknowledged and acted upon by decision makers.

Our research revealed that a number of policies are closely interlinked, and highlightedthe need for an institutional framework that will enable policy makers to take fullaccount of the issues and procedures related to the area in which they are working.Stakeholders frequently reported that appropriate land tenure, land use and populationpolicies are major factors in the effective implementation of environmental policy andlong-term improvements in the management of soil fertility. Land tenure policy isparticularly pertinent to soil fertility management, as farmers are often unable orunwilling to invest in long-term improvements because the prevailing practice of landre-allocation by peasant associations leaves them with no security of tenure (Data 1998,Worku 1998).


Stakeholders have been involved in formulating the national environmental policy andregional conservation strategies in a variety of ways. Their contributions ranged frominformation provision to direct involvement in framing policy statements. However, themost common fora for participation were workshops organised to publicise and gathercomments on draft policy documents, meetings which were designed to provideinformation rather than improve capacity for participatory decision-making.

The policy formulation process has also failed to take proper account of the potentialvalue of information generated by research. Little effort was made in either region tocommission studies or seek out the opinions of researchers on the issues under

Table 3. Comparison of the extension and environmental policies

Characteristic Environmental Policy Extension Strategy

Origin of policy Federal level Federal level

Links to national Moderate Close policy priorities

Support from Federal level Moderate Strong

Focus Cross-sectoral Mainly single sector, BoA

Time taken for policy Very long Very rapid formulation process

Involvement of Limited at federal level, Very limited stakeholders in formulation more at regional level

Degree of farmer Involved as source of Not involved in formulation, participation information and sometimes subject to rather

occasional comments coercive implementation

Involvement of stakeholders Not yet implemented More involvementin implementation

Implementation Complex, not well Relatively easy to handle requirements understood and extend

Emphasis on monitoring Not yet implemented Heavy, with yearlyevaluation workshops

Role of NGOs Involved in taking the Initiative by one NGO, with initiative, then tailing off good follow up

Role of private sector Not yet known Input supply


consideration by policy makers. We would also recommend that opportunities forstakeholders to participate in the process should be built into the framework of policyformulation. As Scoones and Toulmin (1999) pointed out, policy makers should regardfarmers as allies, and actively seek out their knowledge, ideas and perceptions on moresustainable land use and development.

In Meket woreda, there have been very positive results from the collaboration betweenNGOs and local level officials and extension staff, from which has developed amethodology that enables farmers to participate in the decision making process. Theemergence of bottom-up policy initiatives on rural development and natural resourcemanagement indicates that regional governments are willing to consider suchmeasures, provided that they are constructive, and systematic efforts are now beingmade at other levels to foster such initiatives.

During the course of this study it became clear that although participatory policyapproaches are regarded as beneficial, much still needs to be done before stakeholderswill be able routinely to participate in the formulation and implementation of policies.Decision makers need to shake off their sense of political superiority and their tendencyto ignore the broader context of their particular field, and to acknowledge that othersare also capable of making a valuable contribution to the process. Policy makers andstakeholders alike need to change their perceptions of how policies are developed and implemented, and approach the process as a consensual and circular procedurethat involves every agency, individual and social group with a stake in how the system evolves, rather than seeing it as a linear process over which government hasexclusive control.


References

ANRS, 1997. The Amhara Regional Conservation Strategy. Bahir Dar.Campbell, J., 1991. Land or peasants? The dilemma confronting Ethiopian resource

conservation. African Affairs 90: 5-21.Constable, M., 1985. Ethiopian Highlands Reclamation Study (summary). MoA and FAO,

Addis Ababa.Croppenstedt, A. and Muller, C., 2000. The Impact of Farmers’ Health and Nutritional

Status on Their Productivity and Efficiency: Evidence from Ethiopia, EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change, Volume 48, Number 3.

Data D., 1998. Soil Fertility Management in its Social Context: A study of localperceptions and practices in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia. Managing Africa’s Soils No. 1,IIED, London.

EPA and MEDaC, 1997. Environmental Policy of the Federal Democratic Republic ofEthiopia. Addis Ababa.

Environment and Development, 1997. Special issue prepared for the EthiopianConservation Strategy Launch Event and World Environment Day. Addis Ababa.

Eyasu E., 1998. Is Soil Fertility Declining? Perspectives on environmental changes inSouthern Ethiopia. Managing Africa’s Soils No. 2, IIED, London.

Eyasu E. and Daniel F., 2000. Managing Fragile Soils: a case study from North Wollo,Ethiopia. Managing Africa’s Soils No. 13, IIED, London.

Garrett, J.L. and Islam, Y., 1998. Policy Research and the Policy Process: Do the twainever meet? Gatekeepers Series no. 74, IIED, London.

HabteMariam A., 1997. Targeting Extension Service and The Extension PackageApproach in Ethiopia. MoA, Addis Ababa.

Kebede T., 1993. National Report on Environment and Development. Addis Ababa.Kruger, H-J., Berhanu F., Yohannes G.M. and Kefeni K., 1996. Creating an inventory

on indigenous S&W measures in Ethiopia. In Reij, C., Scoones, I. and Toulmin, C., (Eds.)1996. Sustaining the soil: indigenous soil and water conservation in Africa. Earthscan,London.

Scoones, I. and Toulmin, C., 1999. Soil nutrient budgets and balances: What use forpolicy? Managing Africa’s Soils No. 6, IIED, London.

Shiferaw, B., 1994. Dual Sector Models, Government Intervention and Biases AgainstAgriculture: the Theory and some Evidence from Ethiopia. In: Holden, S. 1994 (ed.)Development, Poverty and Environment: Proceedings from a Nordic Course inDevelopment Economics, NLH, Ås.

UNDP and FAO, 1997. Study on deregulation of fertiliser prices and withdrawal ofsubsidy –Ethiopia. Technical report, Rome.

Wood, A., 1990. Natural resource management and rural development in Ethiopia. In:Pausewang, S., Fantu, C., Bruce, S. and Eshetu C. (Eds.) Ethiopia: Options for RuralDevelopment. Zed Books, London.

Worku T., 1998. Policies for Sustainable Soil Fertility Management in Wolaita, SouthernEthiopia. FRP Technical Pamphlet No. 18, FARM Africa, Addis Ababa.


Working papers published in the series Managing Africa’s Soils:

1 Soil fertility management in its social context: a study of local perceptions andpractices in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia. DATA Dea. September 1998

2 Is soil fertility declining? Perspectives on environmental change in southern Ethiopia.EYASU Elias September 1998

3 Experiences in participatory diagnosis of soil nutrient management in Kenya. D.Onduru, G.N. Gachini and S.M. Nandwa. September 1998

4 Farmer responses to soil fertility decline in banana-based cropping systems of Uganda.Mateete Bekunda. February 1999

5 Experiences of farmer participation in soil fertility research in southern Zimbabwe.Blasio Z. Mavedzenge, Felix Murimbarimba and Claxon Mudzivo. February 1999

6 Soil nutrient balances: what use for policy? Ian Scoones and Camilla Toulmin. February1999

7 Integrated soil fertility management in Siaya district, Kenya by Nelson A.R. Mango.August 1999

8 Participatory research of compost and liquid manure in Kenya by D.D. Onduru, G.N.Gachini, A. de Jager and J-M Diop. August 1999

9 In the balance? Evaluating soil nutrient budgets for an agro-pastoral village ofSouthern Mali by Joshua J. Ramisch. August 1999

10 Farmers’ knowledge of soil fertility and local management strategies in Tigray,Ethiopia by Marc Corbeels, Abebe Shiferaw and Mitiku Haile. February 2000.

11 Towards integrated soil fertility management in Malawi: incorporating participatoryapproaches in agricultural research by G. Kanyama-Phiri, S. Snapp, B. Kamanga and K.Wellard. February 2000

12 Dynamics of irrigated rice farming in Mali by Loes Kater, Ibrahim Dembélé, and IdrissaDicko. February 2000

13 Managing fragile soils: a case study from North Wollo, Ethiopia by Eyasu Elias andDaniel Fantaye. April 2000

14 Policies on the cultivation of vleis in Zimbabwe and local resistance to theirenforcement: a case study of Mutoko and Chivi districts by Billy B. Mukamuri andTerence Mavedzenge. April 2000

15 Improving the management of manure in Zimbabwe by Jean K. Nzuma and Herbert K.Murwira. April 2000

16 Policy processes in Uganda and their impact on soil fertility by Beatrice Egulu and PeterEbanyat. July 2000.

17 Stakeholder participation in policy processes in Ethiopia by Worku Tessema. July 2000.18 Stakeholder perceptions of agricultural policies in Kenya by Harry C.K. Kinyanjui, Stella

N. Obanyi, Davies D. Onduru, Louis N. Gachimbi and Stephen M. Nandwa. July 2000

Managing Africa’s Soils papers can be obtained from:IIED-Drylands programme, 3 Endsleigh StreetLondon WC1H ODD; United KingdomTel: +44 171 388 2117; Fax: +44 171 388 2826E-mail: [email protected]

These working papers can also be downloaded from internet: www.iied.org/drylands

IIED publications

To order copies of these publications please contact IIED Bookshop, 3 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H 0DD, UKTel: (+44 20) 7388 2117; Fax (+44 20) 7388 2826; email: [email protected]; website: www.iied.org

This discussion paper series has been launched aspart of the NUTNET project. NUTNET stands forNetworking on soil fertility management:improving soil fertility in Africa-Nutrient networks& stakeholder perceptions. It brings togetherseveral research programmes working on soilfertility management in sub-Saharan Africa.Activities include research on farmer managementof soil fertility and understanding of theperceptions of different stakeholders towards howbest to improve soils management. This series willbe continued under the INCO-concerted actionprogramme Enhancing soil fertility in Africa: fromfield to policy-maker which builds on the workdone by NUTNET and receives funding from theEuropean Union.

This discussion paper series offers an opportunity topublish findings from research on soil fertilitymanagement in Sub Saharan Africa. Themesinclude:• Farmers’ knowledge of soils and soil fertility

management• Socio-economic context of environmental change,

including histories of soil management• Nutrient budget analysis at farm and field level• Examination of the policy context within which

soil fertility is managed• Discussion of methodological aspects and

dilemmas when analysing soil fertilitymanagement at farm level

• Approaches towards on-farm trials andtechnology development with farmers.

The series encourages publication of recentresearch results in a discussion paper form.Emphasis will be on interdisciplinary research results which highlight a particular theme of widerrelevance to development policy and practice.

For more information and submission ofmanuscripts please contact:Thea HilhorstIIED-Drylands Programme4 Hanover StreetEH2 2EN EdinburghUnited KingdomTel: +44 131 624 7042Fax: +44 131 624 7050E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 1560-3520

stakeholder participation in policy - pubs.iied.orgpubs.iied.org/pdfs/x176iied.pdf · agriculture...

Documents